1

Filed 11/14/ 22 Save North Petaluma River and Wetlands v. City of Petaluma CA1/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified fo r publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opi nion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL O F THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

SAVE NORTH PETALUMA RIVER AND WETLANDS et al

. , Petitio ners and A ppellants

,

v.
CITY OF P ETALUMA et al

. , Respondents

,

J. C YRIL JOHNSON INVESTMENT C ORP ORATION

, R espondent and R eal Part y in
Interest. A163192

(Sonoma Count y Super. Ct. No. SCV

- 266157)

This is a mandate proceeding t o r e v i e w an agen cy ’ s de cision for

com pliance w ith the C alifornia Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA) (Pub.

Re sour ces Cod e , § 21000 et seq. 1 ) At iss ue i s the decision of the City of

Petaluma ( the City) to certify the environm ental impact report ( E IR) for a

180

- unit apartment comple x in Pe talu ma propose d by real part y in interest J.

Cyril Johnson Investment Corporatio n ( JCJI C )

. S ave North Petaluma River

1 A ll fur th e r s t atu t o ry re fe re nc e s ar e to t his code un less othe rw i se in d icat ed

.2

and Wetlands and Beverly Alexander (petitioners) appeal the trial court ’ s

decision uph olding the City ’ s certification of the EIR. We shall affirm.

Fact ua l and Procedural Background

In 2003, JCJIC proposed the develop ment of a 312

- u nit apartment

c omplex called the “ Sid Commons Apartment Project

, ” which would be

located in Petaluma on roughly 15.45 acres of v aca nt land along th e

Petal uma R iver at the northern end of Graylawn Avenue (the Project )

. The

site of the Projec t inclu de s grasses, wetlands, oaks, and other vegetati on

. In

July 2007, the Cit y pub lished t he “ N otice of P reparation ” for the Project

. T he

en vironmental consul tant ex pected that a D raft EI R could be completed in

approximately five months.

In May 2008, shortl y a fter the City began work o n the D raft EI R, the

City adopted Gene ral Plan 202 5

. 2 To conform to General Plan 2025

, JCJIC

su bmitted its Project applicatio n as a smaller 278

- unit complex and also

re vised the Project to incl u de river te rraci ng

.
In October 2 0 15, the City b e gan me e tin g wi th reg ulato ry agencies to

solicit their input on the Pro ject. After conducting site visits, t he Calif ornia

Department of F i sh and Wildlife , th e Re gional Water Quality Co ntrol Board

, and the N ationa l Oceanic and Atm os p heric Ad m inis t ration Fisheries S erv ice

2 Genera l Pl an 2025 in cluded the foll ow i ng re vis ion s to the p r eviou s G e ner al Plan : (1) incr ea se of t he allowab l e res i d e nt ial d e nsity a t the site ; (2) a d di t io n of P ol i cy 1

- P

- 2

, pr ov id in g f or i nfil l d ev elopment at equ al or high e r de nsi t y a nd inten si ty th an surround ing uses ; ( 3 ) add it i on of the Pro ject Site
to the Land Inve n tory of Opp o rtun i t y Sites i n t he H ou sing Eleme nt of t he Ge n eral Plan ; (4 ) ad d iti o n of P ol ic y 8

- P

- 3 0 , w hich r equi res the set bac k of

n ew d evel opment at lea st 200 feet from t h e cent er l ine o f t he P etaluma R iver ; and (5 ) addition of P oli cy 8

- P

- 2 8

, wh i c h ca ll ed for t he “ ‘ construc tion o f a flo od

te rrace s yste m t o all ow the [ Pe t a lum a ] R iv e r to a ccom modat e a 100

- year storm e vent w ithi n a modified R i ve r chann el, to the extent fe a s i b l e gi ven

ex is ting physic al a nd natural cons tr aints

. ’ ”3

all provided fee dback on the issues they believed the EIR should ad dress. In

view of General Plan 2025 and th e agenc y f ee dback

, a “ H abitat Miti ga t i on

M on i tor i n g P lan ” was created in order to : a ddress habitat replac ement a nd

mitigation for impacts caused by the general plan ’ s requirement for river

terracing ; preserv e existing native riparia n “ ‘ high value ’ ” habitat where

pr actic ab le ; in cr e as e th e acreage of aq uatic habita t with in the Project s ite ;

i ncreas e the funct ions an d v alues of the exi sting hab itat; and imp r o v e f lo od

ca pa c it y of the Petaluma River. The mo nitoring plan was incorp orate d into

the “ Biolo gical Res o ur ces ” c hap ter of the D raft EIR

. On March 1, 2 018, the Ci ty published the D raft EIR for publi c revie w

and c om m ent. JCJIC provided various c on s ultant studies regarding

en vironmental i mpacts, including a March 2004 report by Wetlan ds Resear ch

Associates, Inc. (WR A) of s o

- c alled “ S pe cia l S t atus S pecies ” (th e 2004 WRA

Special Status Species Report or the 20 04 WRA Re p ort ). In Apri l 2018, t he

Planning Commiss i on con s idered the D r aft EIR and to ok public comm ent

tha t incl uded co n c erns f rom n eighbo ring resident s rega rdi ng traf fic impacts

to Graylaw n Avenue and neighboring streets , impacts to the floodpl ain, and

dec reas e d q ua lity o f lif e for the ne ighborhood. The c ommission provided

f eedback on t he D r aft EIR and offer ed comm ent s to add ress t he int ense
density of the Proj ect and to provide for an appropriate buff er be tween the

Project and t he ri parian corr idor.

On Ma y 2 1, 2 018, t he Cit y Council held a hearing on th e D raf t EIR

. City s taff and t he EIR consul tant presented the D raft EIR , summarized the

public comment, and repor ted on the outcome of the Plan ning Commission

heari ng

. The council consider ed the publ ic co m m en t

, w hich rei terated

co n cerns about the impact of inc r e ased t raffi c on neighboring st reets and

decrea sed quality of life for the neighborhood. Comm ent er s were a lso4

concer ned a bout impact s to flo oding, the floodplai n , hy drolo gy, we tlands, th e

Peta l uma R i v er , w ildlife, tree s, and access to t he pr oposed river t r ail

. C ity

C ouncil m embers provided comment and requested supplemental

documentation , noting concern s abou t the h yd rology an alysis, noise

mo de ling, and t raffic data

. A lthough th e co unc il autho rize d p re p aration of a

fi nal EIR, a m a

jo rity of i ts members expressed a p r eferenc e for a refined

concept that would reduce density , minimize traffic impa cts, provi de an

enhan ced buffe r betw een the propose d d eve lopment and t he riparian

corrid o r, and minimiz e impac ts to mature tre es and wetl an d f eatur es

. In October 20 1 9, the City issued its “ Response to Comments/Final

Envi ronmental Impact Report ” ( F i nal EIR). I n re s ponse to the sign ifi ca nt

environmen tal conclusio ns rai s ed in the D raft EIR and the comments from

pu bl i c a g e nc i es and t he public, JCJIC propose d a revised version of the

Projec t that would further re duce th e proposed complex from 278 units to 2 05

uni ts ; re duce t he he ight of certain residen tial bui l dings from three to two

stories ; i ncr ea s e build in g s etbac k f rom the Pet a l u ma River ; and implement a

“ T raffic C alming P lan ” on Gr ayla wn an d Jess Avenues

. The F inal E IR

analyzed the se re vi si ons and c oncl uded they e limi n a t ed o r reduced several of

the potentia l sign ifica nt i mpac ts iden tified in the D raft EI R f or the o rigina l

plan. Al t hough the Planning Com m issi on vo ted to reco mmend tha t the City

Council certify the EIR

, it di d not r ec ommend approv al o f neces sary zoni ng

ame ndments.

On Jan ua r y 8, 2020, JCJIC submitted another reduced vers ion of the

Project w ith 180 u n its in mostl y thre e

- sto ry buildings except for the two

- st ory

b ui l di ngs in the areas adja c ent to ex isting single

- family ho mes ( the Second5

R evi si o n )

. 3 Amo ng oth er t hing s , t hese changes were intended to reduce the

b uilding footprint and i ncrea se t he setbac k from the Petalum a River ;

prese rve two we tla n ds nea r the river an d avoid dev e lopmen t in the River

Plan C orridor; and p rese rve a dd it i o nal tr ees w ith a floo d terr ace desi g n adjus tment

. The changes would al so reduce flood imp a cts and result in a

fu rther 12 p e rc ent reduct ion in v ehicle trips

. On F ebrua ry 3, 202 0, the City Council held a hearing on w h e ther t o

cer tify the EIR based o n th e S econd Revision and a ppr ove t he z oning

am endm ents. A City staff memo prepar e d for this hearing th oroughly

detail e d the h i s t o ry of the Project , including the P lanning Com mi s s ion ’ s

consi deration of the F inal EIR a nd JCJIC ’ s appeal of t he commi s sio n ’ s deni al

o f the pro posed zoni ng ame ndments ; the comments received o n the D raf t and

F ina l EIR s ; the exten t of JC JIC ’ s pu bl ic outrea c h to better understand and

respo n d t o neigh borho od concerns ; a nd the mu ltiple revisions JCJIC ma de to

the Project in response to comments

. The sta ff repo rt con c lu ded that the

ch anges i n the Second R evisio n reduced i m pacts, reduced conflic ts rega rdi ng

tre e pr otection an d w e tlands preservation , and addressed the concer ns that

had ca used the Planning Commi ssion to deny t he zoning amend ments. It

a lso noted th e Seco nd R ev is i on was with i n the range of alternatives

addressed in the EIR and would no t re sult in n e w or more s u b stanti al

im pacts compa red to pr i or v ersions.

Mea nwhile, e arlier t hat aftern oon, petitioners sub mitted a lette r to the

City Council cha ll eng ing nu me r ous as pects of the Project ’ s CEQA review

. A s

re levant here, p e ti tion ers dispu ted t he adequ a c y of the E IR ’ s s pecial s tatus

3 T h e Pro jec t s ite c ould h ave ac commod a ted up t o 282 unit s unde r the
La n d I n v en t o ry re fe re nc e d in the revi se d Gene ral Plan

.6

s pecies analysis and challenged the EIR ’ s failure to an alyze em ergen cy

eva c u ations

. Af ter s everal hours of de liber ation an d publ ic comment, the City

Council voted to certify the EIR a nd to overturn the Planning Com mission ’ s

d enial of zoning amen d ments

. The c o unc il su bseq ue ntly approve d the zon ing

amend m e nts by ordinance on February 24, 2020.

Petitione r s fil ed a petition fo r writ of mandate challenging the

adequa cy of t he EIR on a number of ground s, includi n g the tw o raise d here

. The trial court h eld a heari ng a nd ther e after d enied t he pe ti t ion in a deta iled

45

- page decision. Aft er e ntry of judgment, petiti oners timely app ealed.

D iscussion

A. CEQA Standard of Review

“ CEQA is a com p r ehensi ve scheme des i g ned to pr ov i de lon g

- t e r m
protection to the environmen t. ” ( Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish & Game

Com. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 105, 112. ) “ With narrow exceptions, C EQA requires

an EIR wh enever a public agency proposes to approve or to carr y out a p roject

t hat m a y have a si g nifica n t effect on the en vironment. ” ( Lau rel Heights

Improvement Ass n. v. Regents of Univ ersity of California (198 8) 47 Cal. 3d

376, 39 0 ( Laure l Heig h t s ) .) The f undame ntal purpose of an EIR is “ to provid e
public agencie s and the publi c in gen e r al wit h d e t ailed i n f ormation about t he

effect which a proposed project is likely to have on the environment; to list

ways in w hich the sign i ficant effects of such a project might be minim ized;

and to in dicate alt e rnatives t o such a project. ” ( § 21061 .) A s such

, t he EIR i s

a n informational document that fu nctions as “ the primary means o f achi eving

the Leg islature ’s considered de clar a tion that it is the poli cy of t h is state t o

‘ tak e all action necessary to protect, re habil i tate, an d enhance the

envir onmenta l q u al i t y of th e s t a te. ’ (§ 21001, su bd. (a).) ” ( L aurel Heights

, at7

p. 392 ; see g enerally Guidelines, § 150 03 , subd. (a) 4 [ “ EIR r equirement is the

h eart of CEQA ”] .)

T he EIR s erves as a “ document of accountability ” b ec ause i t requires

c ertification or rejec t i o n by the r e s po nsible public officials

. ( La urel Heights

,

supra , 47 Cal.3d a t p

. 392. ) “ If CEQA is scrupul ously followed, the publi c wil l

k no w the basis o n which its respo nsible offi cials either app rove or reject

enviro nmentally s ig nificant action, and t h e pub lic, b e i ng duly informed, can

respo nd accordingly to actio n with which it disagrees. ” ( I bid .) Although

perfection in preparing the EIR is not required , the age ncy mu st reasonably

and in good faith d iscuss a proje ct in detai l s ufficient to en able t h e pub lic to

d i scer n the “ ‘ analytic route ’ ” that the “ ‘ agency traveled from evidence to

action. ’ ” (

Id

. at p. 404 ; see Guidelin es, § 15151; San Franciscans for Liva ble

Ne ighborhoods v. City and County of San Franci sco (2018) 26 Cal .App.5th

596, 614

. )

I n a m andate p r oceeding to review an agency ’s decisi o n for compliance

with CEQ A, our role i s to d e t ermi ne t he EI R ’s sufficiency as a n inform ative

do cum en t ; we do not pa ss upo n th e correctness of the agency ’ s environmen tal

determi nation s

. ( Lau r el Heig h ts
, s u p ra , 47 Ca l

. 3 d at p. 392.) Like the t rial

cour t , we “ review the administrat ive recor d to det ermin e whether the ag ency

p r e j udi cial ly ab used its d iscretion. ” ( Save O u r Peni nsula Committee v.

Monterey County B d. of Supervisors (2001) 87 C a l.App.4th 9 9, 116

– 1 17 ( Save

O u r Peninsula ) .) For purposes of CEQ A, an abuse of discretion “ is

establis hed if the agency has not pro ceede d in a manner required by law or if

the determi nation or decision is not su pported by s u bstanti al ev iden ce

. ”

4 All referenc es to “ Guidelines ” are to t h e sta te CEQ A Guideli n es , w h ich i m p lement the pro visions of CE QA and are s et f or th in th e Cali f

o rnia C ode of Regul ations, title 14, s ection 1 5 000 e t se q

.8

( § 2 11 68

. 5 ; see Sierra Club v. Sta te B d

. o f Forestry (199 4 ) 7 Cal.4th 1215

,
1236 .)

CEQ A re gulations def ine substan tial evi dence as “ enough r eleva nt

information and reasonable inferences from t h is information that a fair

ar gument can be made to support a co n clusio n, e ven thoug h other con clusi o ns
might also be reached. ” ( Guidelines, § 15384

, subd. (a) .) W h e the r a fair

argument can be made r equ i res an examination of “ the who le re c ord before

th e lead agency. ” (

Ibid .) Subs tantial evi de nce includ es “ facts, r easona ble

a s sumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts ”

( Gu i delines, § 15384 , subd. ( b ) )

, bu t can not be established by “ [a] rgument,
speculati on, unsubst a ntiated op ini on or n a r rativ e , evidenc e which is cl ea rly

erroneo us or inac c u r a t e , or e v i dence of s ocial or e con om i c impacts which do

not con t rib ute to or are no t c aused by ph ysical impacts on the envir onment ”

( Guidelines

, § 15384, subd. (a) )

. T he substantial ev idenc e s tan dard requires that we “ ‘ resolve

re aso nable do u b ts i n fa v or of the ad m i nistra t i v e findi ng a n d de c ision ’ ” a nd

refrain from wei ghing confli cting ev idence and secon d guessing agency

determinations that a project ’ s adverse ef fects are or are not su ffici ent ly

m iti g ated

. ( Laure l H

eights

, sup ra , 47 Cal.3d a t p p

. 3 92

– 393

. ) It is t he

b u rden o f t he pro j ect o pponents to pro ve the EIR is legal ly inadequat e. ( Sav e

Our Penin su l a , supra , 87 Cal.App.4th at p. 117.)

On appeal, petitioners c ontend the trial court err ed an d abused its

discretion in upholdi ng the City ’ s certifica t ion of th e EIR beca u s e , in thei r

vie w , t he EIR f

ailed to proper ly an alyze the Pro ject ’ s im p act s on special

status species and on public safety in th e e ve nt of an evacuat io n. We a ddress

thes e clai m s in order.9

B. T he EIR P roper ly An a l yzed Imp act s to Speci al S t atus S pec ie s
C E QA r e gul ation s conte m pl ate that the ph ysical conditions e xisti ng

wh en a N ot ice of Preparation is published “ will normally constitute the

baseline physical conditions ” used t o descr i be the envi ro nmental setting and

to determin e the signific a nt eff ect s of a prop o sed projec t

. ( G uideline s,
§ 15125, sub d. (a) .) K nowle dge o f the b aseline conditions is “ critical to the

assessment of environmental imp acts

, ” and s pecial emphasis is “ pla ced on

envi ro n mental resources that a re rare or u ni que to t ha t re g ion an d w ould be

a ffe cte d by the p roj ec t. ” ( Guidelines , § 15 125, sub d. (c).) W hen a n EIR

contains an inadequate description of the environmental setting for a project

,

“ a proper analysi s of p roject im pacts [is ] impossible. ” ( Galant e V iney ards v

.
Mon t erey Peni n s u la Wat er Manag ement Di st

. ( 1997) 60 C al.App.4th 1109

, 1122 [invalidatin g EIR cont aining only passing references to surrounding

viticulture]; see Friends of the Eel River v. Sonom a Coun ty Wa ter Agency

(2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 859, 8 73

– 875. )

Here

, the N oti ce o f P repa r ation was iss ue d in J uly 2007. As t he

a dministrative re cord documents

, the EI R cont ains a 70

- pa ge analysis

addressing potential impacts to biological resources on the P roje ct site

,
incl uding special stat us speci e s

. The bio logi c al resources sec t ion of th e EIR

wa s p repar e d by B ooker Holt on, an e xp ert biol ogist , wh o inv es tigated the

P roject site following the N otice of P reparat ion and relied on a num ber of

sourc es

— includin g the 2004 WRA Speci a l Stat us Spe cie s R e por t

, site visits,

v arious state a nd feder al p l ant a n d wi ldl if e database s, inpu t from regul a tory
agencies , arborist repor ts, vegetation mapp ing

, and environmental

communities mapping of the site

— to supp ort his analys is.

A s defined in t he EIR ’ s bio logical resources sec tion

, spe cial s tatus

s pecies ar e “ plants a nd an i mals legally protected under sta te and fede ral10

endangered species acts or other regula tions, o r thos e species t hat t he

scienti fic community con s ide rs suffi cien tl y ra re to q u alify for s u ch listin g

. ”

Based o n WRA ’ s Jun e 2009 ma ppin g of seve n different habi t at typ es on the

Proj ect site

, 5 t he EIR detailed the follow i ng in forma t ion co ncerning the

pos sibl e presence of special sta t us pl ants and animals

, a nd offere d an al y ses

c oncer ning the impact of Proje ct ac tivit ies on such s p ecies and the effec t of

recomm ended mitigati on measures

.

1. S pecial Status Pla nt Species

T he EI R desc ribed the ex isting c ondit ion s of the Projec t si te as follo w s :

“ No speci al status plants h a ve a m o derat e or high potential to occur on th e

Pro ject site. T h is determi nation wa s based on the h a bitat ty pes present on
the site, the know n habitat re quirem ents for t h ose sp ecial sta tus p la nts

potentially o ccu rring in th e gene ral area , and the results of p re vi ous s urve ys of the property. Furt he rmo re, t he highly dis t urbed nat ure of th e site woul d

in d i cate tha t none are like ly to be present. ” ( Fn. om itted.)

In i ts impact anal ysi s, t he EI R con cluded “ the potent i al for the Pro j ect

t o result in advers e i mpac t s on spe cial status plant species is less th an signi ficant. ” In so co ncluding

, the EIR ex p lain e d: “ Potential special status

plant habita ts i n the P roject area we re eval uated in 200 8 and cross

refe r enced with [ the Ca l if orn ia Natur al Diversi ty Da ta bas e ] a nd [ the

C alifo rnia Native Pla nt So ciety ] lists of special status pla nts potentia l ly

present in t h e regio n. Based on t h e habi t at types p resent an d ot her

knowl edge of the site, special s t atus plant spe c ie s w ere dete rmined to h ave

either low potential fo r be in g present, or we re de te rmi ned to be not present

at the Project sit e. ”

5 The se ve n h abit ats a re: non

- nat ive grasslan d; val ley o ak woodland; ripa ria n woodl and; mixed woodlan d; seaso na l we tlands ; Peta luma R i v er (waters of the U.S.); an d detentio n basi n

.11

In lig h t of this asses s ment

, mit i gation measures fo r the pro tect ion of

spe cial status pl ants were deemed un n ecessary and n o n e wa s recomm ende d

.

2. Sp ecial Status Bir ds

T he EIR desc ribe d “ a moderate t o hi gh po tential of occurrence for

se veral speci al s tatu s bird sp e cies to oc cur i n the Proj e ct are a

. ” Ac c or ding to

the EIR, s pecial status sp ec ies that were likely t o fo rage and / or nest i n the

t ypes of habi tats lo cat ed on the Proje ct si te i nc luded white

- tailed kite

, A llen ’ s

hummi ngbird, log g erhe ad shrike, salt marsh co m mon yellow thr o a t

, Ca lifornia Ridgeway ’ s ra il, a nd Californi a black rail. Ano ther state

endangered /federal threatened species tha t “ may be pres e n t ” on the sit e

inclu ded th e ye ll ow

- bil led cuckoo

, whil e othe r “ sta t e S p eci es o f S pe cial

C oncern ” that “ could n e s t ” i n t he Proj e ct site grassla nds included “ long

- eared

owl, Purple mar ti n, yellow warbler, yell ow

- br easted cha t, yellow

- bi lled

cucko o , and Northern h arri er. ”

In analyzi ng t he Project ’ s imp ac t , th e EI R con cluded : “ Based o n
existing habi tat co n di tion s, t here is a mod er a te t o hi gh potential for

occurren c e of four special statu s bird species and rapt ors t o occur at the

Project site. ” Spec i f

ical ly, “ [t] rees al ong t he Pet alu ma R iv e r c ould pro v ide

suitable nesting h abitat, and grasslan d s o n t he site provide s u ita bl e fo ra gin g

habitat for the White

- Tailed Kite, a [California Department of Fish and

Wildli fe ] fu lly protec ted species. T he Allen ’ s Humm ing bird, a [U.S. Fish a nd

Wil d life S e rvic e ] Spe cies of Conservat ion Conce r n, are c ommon breedi ng

spec ies in ripari a n and scru b hab i tats, and may breed at the Project site

along Pe ta luma River. Grasslands and adjace nt shrubs and r ip arian trees

wit hin the Project site p rovid e sui t a bl e f orag in g and nesti ng habitat for

Lo gge r head S hr ike, a [California Depart ment of Fish a nd Wildli f e ] Sp e cie s of

Special Concern and a federal S pe cies o f Conservation Concern. S alt marsh12

comm o n yellowthroa t, a federal Species of C onserv ation Conc ern and a

[Ca lifo rn ia Department of Fi s h and Wildli fe ] S pecies of Concern, may nest

alon g Pe t alum a Ri ver in emerg e nt vegetation or willows. F u rt her more, the

oak and riparian w oodlands that e xist on three sides of the Project si t e also

pro v ides suitable nesting ha bitat for s everal r ap tor s pecies. [ ¶ ] Pot enti a lly

sig nifi cant imp a cts to t hese bi rd spec i es include ne st and/or young

abandonment, re s ul ting from gr ading or constructi on disturbance

. ”

Additional ly, the i m pact a nal y s is determined that “ [w]h ile project s ite

s ur veys d id not find habi tat s uitable for area ba t species , the 2 01 7 arboris t

study not e d two tree s wi t h cavities ” th a t “ may provide suitable roosting

habitat for so m e bat species such as the pallid bat

. ”

The EIR then recommen ded two measures “ [t]o add ress the po tenti al

f o r Proje ct

- r elated g r ading an d const r u c tion act ivities to af fect s pec i al status

bird s pe c ie s

. ” The first mitig ation measure c alled for pre

- construction

nesting sur veys o f tre e s in the Pro ject site i n the event gra d ing or

con struction is “ sc hedu l e d duri ng t he nesti n g season of mig ra t ory bi r ds

(Februar y 1 through Au gu st 30) ” and for im pleme n tation of specif ied

prote ction me asures overseen by a qualified biologist i n t he eve n t an y active

nest is found

. Th e s econ d mit igation measure reco m mended pre

- c onstruct ion

tree roost su r veys by a qualified biologist and other me a sures to p rotect bat s

dur i ng al l t ree remov al and veget ation mana gement activit i es on the Project

site. The EIR d etermined these mitigati on measures w o u ld “ p re vent harm to

special sta t us bird and bat spec ies ” and would mi t igate impacts to such

species “ to a level o f l ess th a n sig n ificant. ”

3. S pecial Status F ish, Re ptile, and Amphibian Spe cies

C itin g the C alifornia Natural Divers ity Data base

, t he E IR repo rted

that three special stat us f is h sp e cies

— Sac ramento s plittai l

, Centr al13

California Coast ESU steelh ea d tr out, a nd Chinook salm o n

— are “ known or

are suspecte d to occur in the r e ach of t he Petaluma River that runs a l ong th e

nor th eastern edge of th e Pr oj ect s i te. ”

T he EIR a dditional ly a dd re ssed the pos sible presence of the Califor nia

Red

- L e gged Frog and th e Western Pond Turtl e , st a ting : “ T he assess ment of

exis ting conditions de t ermined that spe cial sta t us s pecies ha bitat is un l ikely

to occu r on the u p lands po rtion of the site that i s pr op os ed fo r development. ”

S pecific al l y, t he upland s development porti on provide s “ low po te n tial ” for

thes e species du e to lack of “ suit a ble aquatic habi tat ” f o r th e turtle speci es

and “ no suitable b ree d ing ha bitat ” fo r the frog species

. However, the E IR

c it ed “ [Calif

ornia Na tural Di ve rsi ty Datab a se] 2013 ” in re port ing recor d ed

occur r e nc es of th e fro g species “ within a three

- mile r ad i us of the si te ” and

cited the 2004 WRA S pecia l St atus S pe c ies R e port f or i ts con cl usion that

“ turtles may occasionall y ne st n ea r the Proje ct bound a ry

. ”

In discussing the pot ential impacts of t he P roject o n these s p ecial

statu s species , the EIR r eported th a t the “ Project ’ s prop osed c onstr uction of a

river terrace exp a nding the b anks of the Rive r , a s directed by the G eneral

Plan

, may res ult in both direct an d indire ct adv e r se effects

. ” In particul ar ,

gra d in g of the f

loodw a y t errace ad

jacent to the r iver a nd t rim ming an d

cl ea ring of ve g et a t io n al ong t he riv er ban k “ co uld resul t in the remo val of

habitat for Cali f

orn ia r e d

- l egg ed f

ro g and Western p ond t urt le

. ” S uch Project

ac tivities could a lso resu lt in “ d eg r ada tion of spec i al status fisheri es habitat

. ”

Sp ec if i c al ly, “ [ u ] nin tention al i n trodu ction of se di ment into the wat er from

erosion or run o ff has the potential to affect st eelh ea d , gre en s turge on and/or

the Sacramento splittail ’ s feedi ng rates an d grow th

, in crease mo rtali t y, cause

be h av ioral avoi dance, and re d u ce ma c ro

- inve rtebra t e p rey populati ons, ”

while unint en ded in troduction into the water of petrochemicals associated14

w i th gr ading equi pmen t “ co uld injure o r kill these fish pop ulations a nd/ or

th e ir m acro

- in vert ebrat e prey po pulations. ”

To add res s these im p a ct s , t he EIR m ade the following

recommenda tions

. JCJ IC “ sh all obt ain all req uired auth orization s from the

U.S. Ar m y Co rp s, th e [ Re gional Water Quality Co ntrol Board ] , the C a l ifornia

Dep artmen t of Fish and Wildli f e , and ot her regula tory agen cies with

j ur i s di ctio n (as ap plicable) .

. . . Copies of applic abl e permits sha ll be

obtained by th e Proje ct ap pl ican t and pr ovid e d to the City of Petaluma prior

to grading, and the Pr oject applicant shall im pl e m ent all avoida n ce and

m inimization measur es a s r e quired by t he s e a gency authorizat ions. ” For

exa mple

, the EIR explained, such age ncy per mits an d ap provals would be

required befo r e any dredged or fill material c ould be discharged into the

Peta l uma Ri ve r , and t h e Project applica nt w ould be re q uired t o c o mp ly w ith

any terms and co nditio ns imposed by the agen cies for protection of C e ntr al

C ali forni a Coas t steelh ead trout and oth e r fi s h

. In addition to all t he avoidan ce and mitigation measures req uired by

t he regulatory ag e ncies

, t he EIR re c o m m en ded t h e following four ad dition al

mitigation mea sures to provide further protecti on : (1 ) to the extent feasible,

grading in t he river a r e a a nd vegetation removal must be limi t ed to specif ic

dat es in order t o “ av oi d potential impact s to an a drom ous fi sh s pe cie s and

ne sti ng birds ” and to avoid inter fer ence wit h “ adult s pawn ing migr ations or

the outmigra t ion of smolts ” ; (2) requiring a “ qu al i fie d [U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Serv ice ]

- approved biologist ” to “ con duct pre

- co ns tr uctio n surveys o f all

grou nd d is t u rb anc e areas within suitable h abi ta ts in the Pro je ct si te to

dete rmine if California r ed

- l egge d f rog s and Western p ond t urtle s a re

prese nt ” w i thin 48 hours of the start of grading operations ; ( 3) requiring the

bi ologi s t to w ork with the r e so urce ag e n ci es to d etermine w he ther and to15

wha t e xtent relo catio n an d /or exclus ion bu ffers would be appropriate in the

event the spe cial status fr og or turtl e spec ies are detected; and

(4) implementing best management practic es prior to a nd during

con s t r u ction, as r eq ui r e d and/or approved by the resou rce agencie s , to p r ote ct
special statu s s pe cies and ha bitats , incl uding a ctive oversight and monit or ing

of acti v ities by a [ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv ice ]

- approved bio logist with

“ s top

- wo rk a uth ori ty

. ”

Acc o rding to the EIR, imp lementat ion of a ll ide nt if ied mit igation

measure s “ wou ld reduce po tential im pac ts of the proposed Project on special

sta t us sp ecies and s e nsiti ve habitats to a le ve l of less than significant. It is

antici pat e d tha t on ce c ons t ruction o f the Pe taluma River terrace and the

[ Habit at M iti gati on M onitori n g P lan ] i s complete, habitat fo r t he s e species

will b e restored and possibly incr eased as a r esult

. ”

4. Analysis

A s the for egoing reflects, the EIR ’ s dis cussio n of s peci al s tatus plant

an d a nimal spec ies drew not onl y f rom t he 2004 W RA S pecial S tat us S pe ci es

R eport

, bu t al so fro m information of th e site ’ s en vironmental conditions

obtained by expe r t s wh o condu cted subsequent ev aluat ion s and site visits

. 6

A fter d es cr ib ing th e habitats existin g on the Pr o jec t site

, the EIR id entified

—
based on cross

- referen c ing such habitats with th e habitats of th e s pecial

status species listed in s tate and federa l p lant and anima l datab as es and also

6 Appare ntly, t he 2 004 WRA Report did not inclu d e a s urvey fo r spec ial

stat us sp ec i es on 6. 24 acres o f t he Project site, in cluding the Pet aluma Riv er and t h e ripar i an habitat along t he ri ver. The EIR , ho we v er, incorpor ated the Habitat Mitig ati on Mon itor ing Pl an as an appe ndix to address t he concer n that the river terracing compone nt o f th e Pro j ect “ will u nav o idabl y impact

cert ain biological resourc es along the Ri ve rbanks including ri parian an d oak

wo o dl a n d h abita t. ” Th e EIR inco rpor ated t he inform ation from the monitoring plan a s part of its special stat us s pecie s an al y s is.16

based on ot her site

- spe ci fic i n fo rm ation

— t h e s pe cial status s p e ci es that occur

or might occur on the site and be impac te d by the Project

. A ll t his resulted in

the EIR ’ s discussion of 11 special status animals with moder a te t o high

potential for occurren ce on the Pro ject si te

— in cl uding six b ir d s p e ci e s , three

fish s p ec ies, one frog s pe cies , and one turtle species

— p lus the potential for

roo s ting on the site by some bat speci es

. Thu s, n o t only did the EIR base its

an alysis on “ f

acts, reasonable assumptions predi cated up on fact s, an d expe r t

o p i n i on s u pp or te d by facts ” ( Gui delines, § 15384 , subd. ( b ) )

, but it amply

demonstrated the “ ‘ a naly tic route ’ ” from such evidence to the action

recommended and u l timately taken

. ( La ure l Heig hts

, sup ra , 47 C al.3d a t

p. 404.)

P etitioners c halle n ge th e EI R a s d e fi ci en t because : (1 ) the City n eve r

inves t igate d t he Project ’ s bas eline conditions a s of 2 0 07 whe n th e N otice of

P repara tion was publis hed, and t he reco r d c ontains no ev ide nce of studi es or

su r veys fo r speci al status species at that p oint in ti me ; ( 2) s ub st an tial

evidence d o e s not sup port the EI R ’ s discussion of baseline condition s fo r

sp ecia l st atus sp e cies ; and (3) absent accura t e a nd complet e i nf orm atio n on

the envi r onmenta l se t ti ng , the EIR could not and did no t a de q u at ely a na ly ze

o r mitigate t he Proje ct ’ s i mpacts on prot e c ted sp ecies

. We are not persuade d.

These cla ims are pre mised la rgel y o n t he assu mption t h at the

info rmation in th e 200 4 WR A S pecial S ta t us S p ecies R ep or t p r ovide d an

inad equate ba si s for ev a lua ti ng t he Project ’ s impact on spe c ial st at us spec ies

be cause the report preceded the 2007 N otic e o f P rep aratio n by thre e yea rs

and was ba sed on a site assessment conducted i n 2001

. A s a preliminar y

m atter , we reject an y su gg e s ti on tha t t he 2 00 4 re port was based solely on a

2001 site s urve y

. No ta bl y, Appendix A to the report containe d inf ormatio n

reflect ing a co mprehensive a ssessment of the poten ti al presence of speci a l17

status pl ant a n d animal speci es on t he Pro je ct sit e b ase d o n W R A ’ s review of

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service “ O ffici al Spec i es L ists for Cot ati U SGS

Qu ad (200 4)

, ” the Calif ornia Departm ent of Fish and Game “ Natural

Diversity Dat a B ase (2003), ” “ searches of the Cotati USGS Quad and

surrounding 9 Q ua ds, ” an d t h e C alif o rnia Native Plant Soci ety “ elect roni c

in v en tory (2004)

. ” And ap ar t from the 2004 W RA Rep ort, t h e EIR indicated

it s analysis included updated database revi ew s in 2008

, 2010

, and 2 0 13

, an d

wa s ba sed on information gathered from site visits in 2009

, 2016

, 7 and 2017

. P e tition ers insist t hat a study conducted at the ti me o f the Noti ce of

P reparation i s in d ispensa ble for setti n g the a p p r opriat e sp ec ial st atus speci es

baseline . But they cite no authority suggesting that CEQA is v iolated wh e re,

a s here , the EIR ’ s ana lysis o n the topic wa s dr awn from site visits , s t udies,

an d habitat evaluati o ns that were undertake n both before a n d after t h e

Noti ce o f Prepar atio n

. Petitioners do not c onte nd the EIR ’ s descr iption of the

existing conditio n s and habi t ats o n th e u nde v elop ed Proj ect si te w as
incompl ete or otherwise f lawe d for p ur po ses of assessing the presence of

special status spe c ie s

. As th e Califo rnia Supr eme Court has e xplained,

“ [n]ei ther CEQA nor t he CEQA Gui delines mandates a uniform, inflexible

rule for determinati on of t he exi sting conditions baseline. ” ( Commun ities f or

a Better E nvironm e nt v. Sou th Coast Air Q uali ty Mana ge m en t Dist. (2010) 48

Cal.4t h 310, 3 2 8 ; se e Save O ur Peni ns ula

, supra , 87 Ca l.App .4th at p. 12 5

[ “ the date for es t a blishing basel i ne cannot be a rigid one ” ]. ) A g enc ies enjoy

the discretion to decide, i n the first instan c e , how to rea listica ll y mea sure the

ex isting p hys ica l co nditions without the proposed project ( Communit ies for a

Bet ter Environment , at p. 328)

, and the selec t ion o f a baseline will be upheld

7 JCJIC ’ s appellat e brie fing represents that t h is site v isi t actu ally

occurre d in 20 15 and that t he EIR ’ s re f e r e nce to 2 016 w as a t yp o gra p hical

er r or.18

when supported by s ubstantial evide n ce (e.g

., C iti zen s for East Shore Parks v.

Sta te Lands Com. ( 2 01 1) 202 C al .App .4th 549, 56 2

– 563; Cherry V alley Pas s

Acres & Neigh bo rs v. City of Beaumont (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 316, 336

– 3 37)

. The record here demonstrate s that substantial eviden ce supp ort s the EI R ’ s analysis of the s pecial status spec ies that were s ub ject to the Pr ojec t ’ s imp act

. Indeed

, pet itioners point to n o evidence tha t the biolog ical conditions

e xis ting on th e Pro j e ct si te in 200 7 differed f rom tho se in 200 4 when WRA

conducted its cr oss

- ref er en ci ng stu dy , or i n later yea rs whe n up dated p lant

a nd wildli fe d ataba ses w ere c onsulted

. For e xample, no s pecia l s tatus pla nt

speci e s were report e d in a 20 08 ev aluation of the pla nt habit ats in the Pro ject

ar e a , or in a March 2009 veget ation map pi ng of t he Pro ject site

, o r in a Jun e

2009 bi ologic al communi ties m apping

. 8 T hi s wa s cons is tent with the 2 004

WRA R ep ort ’ s account t hat no spe cial status pla nts ha d ev er bee n o b served

o n the Proj ect site

. 9 T h e i nfo rmation in the EIR als o aligned wit h th e

i n fo r ma ti on containe d in t h e 2008 EIR for General P lan 20 25

, which

e ncompassed the Project si te and f eatur ed its o wn analysi s of s pecial status

p l ant and an im a l s pec i es for the b roader Peta l uma area

. Mor eover , whe n e x perts a n d regul atory agenc ies brou ght n ew

i nf ormation t o JCJI C ’ s atte ntion

, JCJIC respon ded by w orking with experts

and City staff to en sure that the EI R address ed suc h mat ter s

. Consequently,

the EIR addresses seve ral s p ecial stat us species that were not mentio n e d in

th e 2004 WRA Report

. For ex am pl e, in 2015 t he C i ty an d regul a tory

8 Petiti oners sugges t the March 20 0 9 vegetation mapping and th e June
20 09 bi ologic al c om munities mapping are no t in th e E IR or in th e r ecord. That is inacc ura te.

9 T he admin istra t i v e r ec o rd cont ains a Septembe r 7, 2004, docume n t in

w h i ch WRA elab orat ed tha t “ su rv eys con d uct e d by Jo nes and St okes in 1997 for the Coro na R eac h Sp ecifi c P lan (w hich inc luded t he pres e n t Sid Comm ons

p roje ct ar ea) resulted in no spec ial s tatu s plants obse r v ed

. ”19

agen cies alerted JCJIC of th e need for additional ev idence regarding on

- si te
fish sp ecies

. This prompted an analysis that ulti m ately resu lt e d in the EIR ’ s

eva luat ion th a t the Pr oject ’ s gra ding and constr uction ac tivi ti e s could resu lt

in adverse eff

ects to t h re e f

ish spec ies and incl usion of recommend atio ns to

miti gate suc h eff

ects

. 10 Additi onally, a 201 7 ar bo rist st u dy noted tw o t re es

with ca v itie s t ha t ma y provide sui table roosting habit at f or some bat sp ec ies

, whi ch l e d to the EIR ’ s i n c lusion of rec ommended mitigation me asures to
protect bats during a ll tree r e mov al and veg et ation management activit ies on

the Proj e c t site.

D esp it e a pro fes s ed con cern that the EIR in ad equate ly addr essed the

Project ’ s i mpact on pla n ts a n d wildlife, pe t i tioner s sugge st the foregoing

information is irrele vant bec a u se , among oth er things, no a dditional spec ial

status sp ec ies studi es were conducted and because s t u dies p ost

- dating 20 07

ha ve n o be arin g on the site con ditio ns existin g in 20 0 7

. But a gain

, peti t io n ers do not challenge the accuracy or comple te ness of the EIR ’ s
description of the Pr o j ect sit e ’ s existing biol ogical and habitat conditions ; n or

do they poi n t to a ny thing indic atin g that suc h c onditions were material ly

diffe rent in 2 00 7 f

or p urposes of a s pecial status species anal ysis

. “ The fact

th at additional studies might b e he lpful d o es not mean that they ar e
required

. ” (

Association of I rr itated Resid e n t s v. County of Madera (2003) 107

Cal. App.4th 1383, 1396 ; Guideline s, § 152 0 4, sub d. (a)

. ) And

, i f anythi ng, the

E IR ’ s inclusion o f the pos t

- 200 7 information indicates th at t he E IR w as

prep ared w ith an eye to ward “ completeness ” and “ a good faith effort a t fu ll

disclosure

. ” ( G u idelines, § 15151 .)

10 N othing in the r ec o r d indicat es c on ti nued c o ncern o n the part of th e
reg u latory ag e n cies after the EIR addre ssed the ident ified inf orm ationa l

gaps

.20

Contr ary to petitio n er s ’ conte n ti on, San Joaqui n R a pto r/Wildlife

Rescu e C enter v. Count y o f Stan i s laus (1994 ) 27 Cal.App.4th 71 3 do es no t

compel a different conclus ion . There , the EIR for a hous ing project was f ound

inadequate and mi sleading bec a us e it u nderstat ed the si gnifi c ance of t he

adjacent San Joa q ui n Ri ver, igno red a nearb y we t land wil dli fe p r ese rve , and

did not address w heth er we tl and area s were on the proj ect site , d espite

comment lette rs flagging suc h conce rns. ( Id

. at pp. 722

– 729.) Here , in

contras t , there i s no e vidence t ha t the EIR omitted or i naccurately described

the mater ial aspec ts of the biological conditions on or ne ar the Pro ject site

, and the EIR expressly took into account important info r m ation concernin g

nearb y habit ats

. Petiti oners ’ o ther auth oriti e s are li k ew ise unavailing. I n M adera

Oversight Co aliti on, Inc. v. C ount y o f Madera (2011) 199 Cal.App

. 4th 48
( M ad era Over sight Coalition )

, th e Notice of Preparation w a s iss ued in 2006

but t he EI R ’ s t raffic analy sis included references to three different b aselines

,

o ne of which was a fut ure baseline using t raf fic con d ition s fo re c ast for the

year 2025 . (

Id

. at p p

. 59

, 9 2

– 93 .) After holding that lead agencies have no

discreti on to adopt a b a s eline that uses con dit ions predicated to o ccur on a
date subsequen t to an E IR ’ s certification ( id

. at p p. 89

– 90, 92)

, the Cou rt of

App ea l re m anded the matter with in stru cti on s to grant the petition for writ

o f mandate as to the EIR ’ s traff ic analysis bec a u se of its failure to c learly

identify the baseline used in analyzi ng the p r oj ect ’ s imp acts ( i d

. at p p

. 107

–

108 )

. 11 I n Sav e O ur Pen ins u l a , sup ra , 87 Cal.App.4th 99

, t he c ou r t rej ected

11 The Cali fornia Supreme C ourt d isapprove d Mader a Oversight Coalition

, supra , 199 C al.Ap p.4 th 48

, inso f ar as it held “ an age n c y may neve r

em plo y pr ed i cted f

uture con di t ions as the sole ba sel ine for analysis of a

p roject ’ s environmental impacts. ” ( Neighbo rs for Smart Rai l v. Expos i tion
M etro Line Construction Authority (20 13 ) 57 Ca l.4th 439

, 457 .)21

an EIR ’ s baseline es timat e of a property ’ s wat er us age t hat re lied on “ a

‘ stan dard water demand factor for irrigated past ureland

, ’ ” becaus e

substa n ti al evidence did n o t show the p roperty was in fact irr iga ted

pa sture land. (

Id

. at p. 1 22.) Fin a ll y, i n C ou nty of A mador v. El Do r a do

County Water Agency (1999) 76 Cal.App .4th 9 3 1, the EIR for a project to

prov ide additio nal water for con sumptiv e use wa s f ound inadequate f

o r

purposes o f determining the projec t ’ s im pa ct s because, am on g other things

, it

fai l e d to adequ a t ely des cribe the base l ine environment and historic al

op e ration s for p re

- project water distribut ion . ( Id . at pp

. 941, 95 4

– 95 5

. )

U nlike th e E IRs in those case s , the EIR he re did not purport to measur e

im p acts based on condition s that did no t exist on t h e Project site or o n

condi tions that were forecasted to exi st a t s ome po int in the distant future

. And as discuss ed

, there is no ind ication t ha t the site condit i ons document ed

in the instant EIR were i ncor r ectly or i ncompletely d es crib e d for p u rposes of

a special status s pe cies an alysi s

.
P etitioners also conten d th e E IR ’ s r e fere nces to st udies and s ite v isits

d id not constitute subst antial e v id en ce supporting i t s special st atus spec ies

an alysis becaus e su c h studies and visits we re not includ ed in the

ad ministra tive re cord and were not otherwise ade quat ely docume nt ed, e .g.,

t he nam es of the parti cipan ts and description s of w ha t took pl ace are n ot

disclosed in the record

. But t he CEQ A Guideline s mak e clear that factual

informatio n in the EIR itself “ may constitu te substantial e vi denc e in the

re cord to suppor t the agenc y ’ s acti on on the pro ject if its decis ion is la ter
challenged in cour t. ” ( Gu i de l in es, §15121, su b d. ( c) ; see Karlso n v. City of

Camarillo (1 9 80) 100 Ca l .App.3d 78 9, 801 [ “ EIR s constit u t e evidence ” ] .)

Moreover, se ctio n 15148 of the Gui de lines p rovides: “ P r eparat ion of EIRs i s dependent upon information from many sources, includin g e ngineering22

projec t reports and many scientific do cuments rela ting to environmental

f eatures. These docu ments shou ld b e c ited but not incl u ded in th e EIR. Th e

EIR s hall cite al l docum ents used in its preparation including, where

possible, the p age and s ec tion number of an y technical report s which were

u sed as the bas is for any statemen ts in the EI R. ” ( Ita lics added. )

H ere i t is unclea r f

r om the rec ord whethe r the s ite visits c i ted in the

EIR resu lted in the type of documents contemplated by se ction 15 1 48 of the

G uideline s . But even assu ming that to be the case, the EIR need not incl ud e

all th e reports used in its prepa ration

. ( Guid elines, § 1 5 148

. ) T hu s, a n

agenc y ’s failure t o disc lose a consul tan t ’s memo or to pr ovide a

compreh ensive summar y of its un derlyin g assumpti o ns and dat a d oe s not

necessaril y r e nder an EIR inade quate

. An d while “ ‘ w e must ensure str ic t

compl iance wit h the procedu res and man dat es o f [CEQA ]

, ’ ” we als o must

remain “ mindf

ul of the purposes of the statute in deciding ho w strict to be in

interpreti n g t he Guidelines. ” ( El Morro C ommunity Ass n. v. California D ep t.

o f Park s & Recreat ion (2 004) 122 C a l.App.4th 1341, 13 54 ( El Morro ) .) In t his

ca s e , the EIR ’ s analys is incorporat ed the information gleaned f rom the site

visit s and data b as es and generally i dentified the source and da te o f such

infor mation

. Moreover, t he City pr ovided an ex tended public r e view and c ommen t

p erio d for the D ra ft E IR fro m March 1 to M ay 21, 2018

, af fording p etitioners

an amp le op port unity t o request the back g ro und deta ils of th e identified sit e

visit s

. In El M

orro , supra , 122 Ca l.App.4th 1341, for example, when the

p e titio ner compla ine d of the d raf t EI R ’ s fai lur e to specifically refe r ence e ach

of its supporting technical reports

, the agency responded with a l is t of the

reports a nd advised the petitio ner the rep orts were availab le for publi c

review in t he agency ’ s offi c e . ( Id

. at p. 135 3

. ) He r e, ho wever , p et ition ers first23

raised th e i r compl aint just hours before the C ity Counci l ’ s Feb ruar y 3, 2020,

h earing o n t he Fi nal EIR

, whi c h did not allo w the Ci ty to respo nd in a simi lar

ma nner

. In sum , p etitione rs fail to show that t he EIR wa s rendered le ga ll y

ina de q uat e s imply because no spec i al sta tus species analysis was conducted

in 2007

. ( See Save Our Pe ninsu l a , su pra , 87 Cal.App.4 t h at p. 117 .) As t he

EI R e xp lai ns, its spe cial s tatus species anal ysis w a s drawn fr om site visits

,

s tudies, and h abitat evaluations t hat were unde rtake n both b e fore and after

the No tice of P re paratio n , and there is no indicati on the analysis w as fla we d

due t o mater ial changes i n the on

- site hab itats o ver the time period at iss ue

. T h us, th e EIR ’s analysis and the inf ormation upo n which it relied all owed fo r

inte l l igen t d ecision mak ing co ncerni n g the Project ’ s impact s on the identified

special status b ir d and b a t sp ec ies that mi g h t forage, roo st

, or ne st on the

site , as we l l as i ts impact s on spe cial sta t us fisheries ha bitat and on special

statu s turtl e and f

rog sp e cies

. Having rejecte d the claim ed in ad equacy of the E IR ’ s s pe ci al stat u s

spec ies analysi s , we re j ec t petiti oners ’ fu r ther contenti on t hat t he EI R co u ld

not and d id no t offer reco mmendatio ns that would adequat ely mitiga t e t he

Project ’ s i mp act s on th ese p r o tect e d spe cies

. C. The EIR P roper ly An a l yzed Public Saf ety I mpa cts Relating to Emerg en c ies

I n a cc orda nce with CEQA

, CE QA Gui d eli nes , the City ’ s p lans a nd

policies

, and agency and professional s tandards, the EIR acknowledged t he

Proje ct ’ s im pact would be c onside red si gnifi cant i f the Project would , as indicated in Appendix G of the Guidelin es , 12 “ [ i ] m pa ir implementation of o r

12 Appen dix G of the Guideline s contains a sample che ck l ist o f envir onment al considerations that lead agencies may use to assess a project ’ s impact

.24

phy s i call y i nterfer e wit h an a dopted emer gency res ponse plan or emergenc y

evacu ation pla n

. ” ( I talics added

. )

The EIR survey ed the ap plicab le regula tory la ndscape and highlight ed

the City ’ s adoption of the “ 2013 Cal ifor ni a Fire C od e , ” wh ic h in corp o ra te s the

“ 2 012 Edi tion o f the Inter nat ional Fire Code. ” The EIR identified the

following em erge ncy

- rel ated code provisions relevant to the propos ed Project:

“ D1 03.3

— Tur ning Radius. The mini mum turning radius shall b e

determ ined by t h e F ir e Code Offic ia l or as appro ve d by loca l st a ndards

. [¶] D103.4

— Dead Ends

. Dead

- end fire app aratus access ro ads in ex ce ss of

one hundred fifty fee t (15 0 ’ ) (45.72 0 m) shall be pr ovided with width and

turnaround pr ovisions in acc ordance with t he local ag en cy r e q ui rements for

pub l ic str eets or as approved b y local standards. [¶] D106.1

— Projects

Having More Than Fifty ( 5 0) Dwe lli ng Uni ts. Multiple

- family

re sid ential p rojects hav ing more than fifty (50) dwelling units shall be

provi ded with two ( 2) separ ate a nd ap p ro ve d fir e ap par at u s acc ess roa ds

. ”

In view of these c ode provisions, the D raft EIR ha d propos ed emer genc y

access to the Project site via existing Grayla wn Avenue, with EVA

( Emerge ncy Vehicle Access ) at Bernic e Court and th e creation of an a t

- g r a d e

cros sing ov e r rai lroad tr a cks (the Shast a Avenue extension)

. But the Final

E IR prop osed to eliminate th e at

- grade r ail crossing in response to concerns

t hat th e c rossing “woul d s ubstantially increase roadway hazards and haz ards

for emergen c y v eh ic l es ac cess ing the Pro ject site ” and g en er ate oth e r

undes i rab le impacts and complicat ions. Instead, the Final EIR expla ined

that “ [ t ] wo d riveway connections are p ropose d to connect the Pr ojec t to
Graylawn Avenue ” an d , as pro posed in the Draft EIR, Bernice C ou r t would

provide “ a se con d a ry mean s of emergency access to the site

. ” T he Bernice

Court connec tion wo uld provide emergency veh icle access “ de si gned to meet25

al l fire appa rat us, t urn ing radius and t urnaround requirements of th e

Pe ta luma Fire C ode

. ”

Sig nif i c an tly, t he EI R repo rt ed that “ [t] he Petalum a Fire Department

has reviewed this proposed EVA route a nd found it to provide acceptable

emer gency ac cess to th e site. ” Moreove r, the EIR expla ined, the “ EVA d esign

shall also meet additio na l recom me ndat ion s o f the Ci ty F ire M arsh al to

pr ohi bi t park ing and other obstructions, and to ensu re that the Bernice Court

EVA is contin uously available for emergen cy use (e .g. , boll ards, red curb o r
red pave ment stri p ing, n o

- parking s ignage , etc.). Fi na l EVA d es ign

mea s u r es , i ncludin g spe cifi c des ign deta ils de monstrating these requirements

will be provided an d reviewed pursuant to the [Site Plan and Architectural

Review ] pr oc ess an d subject to r ev iew and appro val by the Fire Marshal

. ” In

lig ht of t his analysi s , the EI R d et ermined the pu b lic safety /emergency access

impacts of the P roject were “ Less than Si gnificant

. ” All thi s amply supported

t he EI R ’ s conclusion th at the Proj ect wo uld not “ [i ] m pa i r impl ementat i o n of

or physi cally interfer e with an adopted e mer gen cy res pon se plan or

emerge ncy evacu atio n pla n

. ” ( Guideline s , Appendix G , italics added .)

Nota bly, petitioners fai l to identify any o ther adopted emergency

respo nse o r emer gency evacu at io n p lans that r e q ui red EIR ana lysis

. Instea d,

they ci te to a C EQA g u idelin e p ro viding t hat an EIR “ should e valuate any

potentially s ignificant direct, indirect, or cumulative en vironm ental im pacts

of lo cating development in areas s usce pti b l e to haza rdou s co nditions ( e.g.,

f loodplains, coastl ines, wildfire risk areas) , i ncl uding b ot h short

- term and

long

- term con ditions, as identified i n authoritative hazard maps, risk

assessments or in land us e plans add ressing such hazar ds a reas. ”

( Gui deli ne s, § 151 26.2, su bd. (a).) In pet i t ioners ’ v iew, the EIR was l egally

deficie nt b ec ause it om it ted an analysi s of egress and e vacuation safety even26

though numerous current and former neig hbors of t he site submi tted p ublic

comment sharing their experie nce s w ith f lood ing a n d g rass fi res in t h e area

.
Pe t itioners also cite to Profe ssor T homas C ova ’ s s ubmission of a on e

page l etter less than a week before the City Council ’ s February 3

, 2020,

hearin g o n the F inal EI R. In h is letter

, Professor C ova d escri bed h i ms el f as a

“ N at iona l E vacuation Exp ert ” and opine d that the Pr oject may have

si gnificant pu bl ic safety impa c ts i n the event residen ts moving into the

planned Sid Commons Apartm ents an d resident s f rom th e neighboring Oa k

Creek Ap ar t ments hav e to evacu ate f r om h az ardous ev ents s u ch as “ floodi ng
along the P etaluma River , eart hquakes, fi re or a r ail wa y hazardous m a t eria l s
spill. ” Noting that all such residents w ill be for ced t o use the sa me str eet for

evacuat ions, Prof

esso r C ov a c alled for furthe r s tu dy of the impac t o f

addi tional development.

E ven assuming, generously, that the submis si ons fr o m t he public and

fro m Pr ofessor Cova provided evidence of a potenti al public safety impa ct as
contempl ated in se ction 15126. 2 of the CEQA G uideline s , we may not

r e weigh conflict ing ev idence

, an d such sub m i ss ion s pr ovid e no basis for

set ting aside th e City ’ s c er tification of t he E IR

. ( See Laure l Heights

, supra , 47 Cal.3d at p. 3 9 3 .) Rather, petitioners b ear the bu rden of provi ng the EIR

is legal ly inadequat e. ( S a ve Our Peninsu l a , sup ra , 87 Cal.App.4th at p. 1 1 7 .)

Our r e view o f the EIR and admini st rativ e rec or d discloses no caus e for

reversal. Case law establ ishes that an agency may rely on the exper ti se of its

staff to dete rmine t hat a project will no t have a s i gnific ant impa ct . ( G entry v.
City of Mu rr ieta ( 1 995) 36 Cal.App. 4th 1359, 137 9

– 1380 [u pholdin g

s uf ficiency of age ncy ’ s initial study] .) Here , a Cit y staff memo p repared for

the Feb ruary 3, 2 02 0

, hearin g corroborated the public safety analysis in the

EIR

. In a ddressing publi c co ncern that “flo od waters wi thin Gra ylawn and27

Jess Avenues wou ld interf e re w it h evacu ation in t he event of a 100

- year

flo od

, ” th e staff memo highli ghted the po int that the “ Project does n ot propose

any deve lopment within t h e reg u lato ry flo odplain of the Petalum a River. A ll

devel opment associated with the S id Commo ns A pa rtmen t P ro ject, including

acc ess r oads a nd infr astructure are located outside of the 100

- y ear

floo dpl ain. ” T h is analysis was co nsistent with a FEMA floodplains mapp in g

feat ured in the Fin al E IR show ing that key access road ways w ere loc ated

out s ide the 100

- y ear fl oo dplain

. 13

T he st a ff memo also refle cted i nformation from t he City ’ s Assistant

Fire Chi ef

, who serve s as “ em e rgency operat ions manager f or the City ’ s

Em ergenc y Oper at ions Center

. ” A cco rding to th e memo, the Assi stant Fire

Ch ief confirmed t h at “ t he F ire D epartm ent does not have s ignifi cant flood or
fire access /egre ss concerns with development above th e 100

- year flood

plain at

the site . H e stat ed t ha t if Gr aylaw n Aven ue we r e to be impact e d by

13 The staff memo noted in more detail that t he F EMA mapping ha d differe d fr om th e h ydrolo gy map s pr e sented in the Draft EIR which showed

“ inunda t ion of the Gra yl a wn Av enue s t reet s ect ion in a 100

- ye ar flood event

, ” and that t his discrep ancy generated a Plan ning Commission “ query regarding the depth of floodwat ers antic ipated on G r ayla wn Av enue

. ” The

memo then explained that su b sequent con v e rsatio ns between the Ci t y Engi ne er a nd the hydr ologist w ho prepared the m o d eling work o n behalf of the City “ led to the finding that the project model ing ( F EIR Fi gures 4

- 3 through 4

- 8) d id no t ac count for r ecent completi on of the Payran area f lood

wor k an d its i mpact of r e movi ng from t he flo odplain the area that FEMA designates a s Zone A99 on its current mappi ng (FEIR Figure 4

- 2 )

. ” As expla ined in the Final EIR, “ [t] he A9 9 des ign ation is f o r are as th at ha ve receiv e d substantial fl o od improvements , but whe r e f lood contro l p r o je ct s are

no t y et complete or not yet accoun t ed for in FEMA mapping

. ” Thus, the s ta ff memo conclude d

, “ con sistent with the FEMA mapping

, G raylawn and J ess Av e nues , as well as proper t ies within the A 9 9 Zone remain outsid e of th e 100

- yea r f loo d plain , both i n t h e current con dition and afte r the upstream terracing and cu mulative upstream ter racing with detention d irected by the General Plan. ” (It a li cs adde d.)28

flo od waters in the fu ture, tall/he avy v eh icles a nd boat s wou ld b e avail able for

resc u e/eva cuatio ns. Additi onally, the ar ea is not in the City ’ s ‘ High Fire

Severit y Zon e ’ wh ere large rapid fi re develo pment pote nt i al exi ts [ s ic ]. While

t here a re empt y fields ne arby th at could pose a hazard of f ire sprea d, he

n otes, the se area s are on leve l grou nd wit h light fue ls and any fir e in the

fiel ds or spread to any structure s nearby wo uld l ikely require an e vacuation

of on ly i mpa cted b uildi ngs, no t the entire c omple x. The F ir e Marsh al ’ s

acc e ptance of the EVA a t Ber nic e Cour t as the se cond poin t of acces s will

provide ad equate access in the case of an emergency. ” 14 (Italics a dded.)

Relying on Sierra Wat c h v. C ounty of Pla cer (202 1) 6 9 Cal. App.5 th 8 6

,

p etit ioners ch aracterize th e Ci ty staff m emo as a post

- EIR analysis that i s

i nsuf ficient to re medy the EIR ’ s omission of a r equired public safety

disc ussion of e vacua tion impacts

. Sierra Watc h invol ved a n EIR f or a new

resort with 85 0 lo dging units, 3 0, 000 squ are feet of comme rcial spa ce , over

3 ,000 p ark ing spac es, and housing for up to 300 empl oy ee s on approx imately

94 acres in Olympic V alley n ea r Lake Tahoe. ( Id . a t p. 92 .) T he re, the

petitioner challe nged the adequacy of the E IR b ec a us e , a mon g other th ing s,

its di scussio n of th e environmental s ett ing did not su fficiently ac knowledge

the proximi ty and uniqueness of L ake Tahoe

. ( Id . at p. 96.) T he Court o f

A ppeal agreed, ob serv ing that the EIR “ offered only one parenthetical

refere nc e to La ke T ahoe ” w it hout ad dres sing the l ake ’ s importa nce, its

ch aract eristi cs, or its cur ren t condition

. ( I bi d

. ) N or did the EIR cons ider the

impact of the pr oject ’ s genera tion of an a dditio n al 23,842 vehicle miles

travel ed (

VMT ) per day on the c lar it y o f th e lake an d the air qua lity of the

14 Althoug h pet itioners a re correct that the City staf f m emo does n ot

m ention whe n th e Assistant Fi re C hi e f made his s tatements to staff, the admin istrative record cont ains documentation th at the statements were made in an email to staf f date d Jan ua ry 14, 20 20

.29

la ke basin . (

Id . at pp. 97

– 102 .) Although the c ount y eventually analyzed the

imp act of the addi tional VMT a few days bef ore c ertif

yin g the EIR ( id . at

p. 102)

, the Court of A ppeal con clude d the analysis came far t oo late t o
permit info rmed deci sion making ( i d

. at p. 103 )

. Si err a Watch o ffers no paral lel to the situation here

. As recounted

above

, th e EIR iden tifie d the relevant provi sions in the C ity ’ s emergency

response plan and took into account sp ecific informat i o n about the Pro ject

site a n d the actual thre at of f lood or f ire at the s ite

. Drawing from s uch

in formation, the E IR then considered whe ther the P rojec t would “ [i ] mpair

im plementa tion o f or physi call y interfere wit h an adopt ed emergency

re sponse plan or e m e rgency evac u ation p la n ” ( Guideli ne s , Appendix G

, it alics

add ed ) and c onclu ded it would not. This was suffi cient to demonst r ate the

an alyti c r oute from specifi c underl ying e vid en ce to the ultim ate conclusion.

( L aurel Heights

, supra , 47 Cal.3d at p. 404 .) M o reo ver, eve n tho ug h the City

had not adopted an emergenc y evacuati on p lan , the City staf f memo
acknowledged th e p ublic co ncern over pote ntial flood or fire evacuati ons

. Staf f spoke with the City ’ s Assist ant F ire Chief and repor t ed his as surance

t ha t t h e City Fire Departm en t did not h ave significant flo o d “ acce ss/egress

conc erns ” because the proposed development w as situated above the 1 00

- ye ar

fl oodplain and becaus e “ tall/ heavy vehic les and boa ts would be avail able for

rescue/evac u a tions ” in the ev ent o f futur e floodwaters o n Graylawn Avenue

. The m emo also docum ented the City ’ s Assistant Fire Chief ’ s confirmation

tha t the Fire Depa rtmen t ha d no significan t fir e

- related “ access/e gress

concerns ” becau se the area was not within th e City ’ s “ ‘ High F ire Se ve r ity

Zo ne ’ ” where l a rge rapid fire dev e lopment pot ential exists. T h u s, the staff

memo prov ides addi tional eviden ce support ing t he Ci ty ’ s c ertifica tion o f th e

EIR.30

In sho rt

, petitioners have not met their burden o f pro vi ng any

inad equac y of the EIR wit h r egard to its analys is of pu blic saf et y imp acts

rela ting to emerg encie s

. ( Save Our Peninsu l a , supra , 87 Cal.App.4 th at

p. 117.)

D isposition

The j udgmen t is affir med. Costs on appeal a re awa rded to real party in

interest.

________________________ _ Fujisaki, J

.

WE CONCUR:

_________________________ Tucher , P.J.

_________________________ Rodríguez , J

.

Save N. Petalu ma Rivers & We tlands et a l. v. City of Petaluma (A16 3192 )